eve6kicksass

Title: TEEN WOLF Rating: ***1/2 (out of 5)

This film would have probably been released on TV or direct-to-video, were it not for Michael J. Fox in the title role as a teenager with the usual high school problems (trying to get accepted, in love with a shallow blond, yearning to be something more than average, has a childhood friend who loves him, but is drawn back because he is not mature enough to know looks aren't everything). In the midst of all this, he discovers he has the mark of the werewolf (!), which he, in turn, uses to solve all his problems. Hailed has an instant dud at the time of its release in 1985, though it became a surprise hit at the box office because of the other Fox movie that year. Its success spawned a sequel and a TV series, though this is the only one of the three that matters (at least to its fans). Like most people, I grew up watching this people, though I recorded off TV, and I recently bought it on DVD and was surprised at the amount of drinking, drug use, profanity, and sexual innuendo is present (that scene in the dressing room was rather obligatory). Still, this film is nothing more than a guilty pleasure, a film with so many bad qualities, yet people love it anyway (thier excuse...how can you dislike a film like this?). I agree. As a comedy, the film isnt uproarious, though it certainly has its moments. The cast is energetic and likable for the most part; aside from Fox, we have funny turns by Jerry Levine as Fox's buddy who uses his image for financial gain, James Hampton is sincere as his father, Susan Ursetti is charming as his child hood friend, but some of the best scenes belong to comedy writer Jay Tarses, who steals nearly every scene he's in as Fox's athletic coach.

The film suffers because of its cliches, sadly...I mean, who did NOT predict the resolution?...though, the film is still entertaining and fun on a certain level. If anything, its certainly a relic of the 80s and like many other films I consider guilty pleasures (i.e. Howard the Duck, Perils of Gwendoline in the land of the Yik Yak), the film is admittedly reeks of bad production values and poor writing and directing, though for the many people who love Fox (like me) and grew up watching it (like me), you simply dont care. P.S. It may be just me, but when I saw the film on DVD after I saw Spider-man, Fox's father says "With great power comes great responsibility"....did Spider-Man rip that off?????...LOL

Fav. Quotes: "Hey, do you anything of a rash that's going around?"

"An explanation is probably long overdue."

Title: WITCHES OF EASTWICK, THE Rating: **** (out of 5)

***YES, THERE ARE SPOILERS***

Based on the novel by John Updike, EASTWICK is the story of three middle aged women who, through the use of black magic (and unaware of their witchly powers) conjure up the "perfect man," who, in reality, is the devil in disguise. Two of the women (Michelle Pfieffer and Susan Sarandon) are divorced, and the other (CHER) is a divorcee who reside in a picture-postcard New England town which is ideal in the sense of living a simple life, though when evil comes into town things start to go out of control. The main reason to see this film is for, of course, Jack Nicholson who contributes another dynamic and delightful performance as the self-proclaimed "horney little devil," and Sarandon, Cher, and Pfieffer are very well cast and wonderful, despite that fact they play it virtually straight when compared to Nicholson, who surely pulls out all the stops. The supporting cast, led by Veronica Cartwright as a woman who slowly goes insane, are terrific as well, and really make this town come to life in terms of the simple existance having its fair share of bad apples.

This is one of those movies where I read the book afterwards (you shouldn't really do that, I know) and discovered of course that the book is much different in style, tone, and texture...i should have mentioned "loosely based" when I started this review. I've seen the film many times and love it, though I do agree with many other fellow critics of its primary flaw: unevenness. Despite that fact, it has everything you could imagine in a film: comedy, drama, horror, suspense, action, and even a musical element added to it. I view it more as a black comedy more that anything else, though it is quite literate and unique....certainly not the usual black comedy, for sure. The film seems to shift wildly in tone without warning, and even though it adds a level of unpredictability to the film, it also seems to make us a little confused in the process. The film, admittedly, does leave some unanswered questions, but for what it presents it truly entertaining from start to finish...which also means that your really not supposed to think about it too much afterwards. In addition, I say its not for every taste because of the subject matter involved...the film tends to get crude at times, which is something that will most likely offend some church goers...though even they would have to admit that Nicholson gives the perfect intrepretation of Satan, at least on a contemporary level. Plus, the most honest thing he says I will repeat at the end of this review as my favorite quote from the film. The direction (by George Miller) is respectable and stylish, and although I mentioned the film's unevenness, Michael Cristofer's screenplays is, more often than not, witty, intelligent and right-on- target (that scene in the church alone near the end is pure brilliance). Plus, let's not forget John William's brilliant score, a real highlight which really moves the film along at a brisk pace. Even if you don't believe in or care for witchcraft, this film is great fun, if only for the terrific performance; the actors must have had a genuine field day while playing these characers (most notably Jack). Just sit back with your girlfriend, boyfriend, wife, husband or just a bunch of friends with a lot of alcohol and you will have a outstanding time watching this.

Quote: "You don't think God makes mistakes? Of course he does, we all make mistakes. Of course when we make mistakes, they call it evil; but when God makes mistakes, they call it 'nature'."

Title: CARNIVAL OF SOULS Rating (Original and Director's Cut): ****

One of the perfect examples of independent filmmaking at its best. Made in 1962, on a modest budget of $13,000, and filmed in only three weeks, this film manages to make you chill in very much the same way NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD did six years later. The difference in the two I think lies in the fact that this film lies on a much more deeper, resonant level which actually makes you think while the latter goes for the throat in the terms of the horror and gore. This is one of those rare horror films that relies on atmosphere and suspense and succeeds on virtually every level, and despite the fact it had limited release and unheard of after a few years, by 1989 a demand for a re-release had come about after it had played quite a bit on late night television. Many of the original cast and crew were reunited and they probably had no clue how it had come about. In 2000, the highly respected Criterion corporation released a 2-disc DVD that is a true treasure for fans of the film and wonderful introduction to those that have never seen it....and I'm particulary talking to everyone who spent $300 on going to see THE SIXTH SENSE and make their own judgement as to how far director M. Night Shymalan borrowed from this to make SENSE his own. The story focuses on a beautiful young woman (Candice Hilligoss) who somehow surivives a drag-racing accident she had gotten into with some local friends. She is a church organist, who feels compelled to leave her hometown in Kansas (probably to leave this accident behind in her mind) and soon finds herself pursued by strange, white-faced "phantom figure" (played by director Herk Harvey). She also finds herself drawn to an abondoned Salt Lake City carnival by forces she can't comprehend, particularly when they make her lose touch with reality. The movie is relatively short; the original version clocks in at 78 minutes, and the Director's cut released in 1989 is five minutes longer, which adds mostly more shots of the zombielike creatures who terrorize her near the end and some more dialogue by Hilligoss with the doctor, and the friend who suggests a drag race at the beginning of the film. Still, the film stands out in the genre of horror films on many levels and should be studied by any person out there who wants to make horror or independent films. The performances are unifirmly superb starting with Hilligoss who plays her part as real as any other person would in her situation, trying to enjoy life and at the same time, figuring out where she is in terms of reality. Sidney Berger gives a wonderful performance as a guy who pursues Hilligoss in another manner; Roger Ebert described his character as being the pivotal example of a "nerd in lust." Even Hervey himself being an amateur actor has the right look and nuance as this ghoul who enters in to Hilligoss' life. As with NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD and Roman Polanski's REPULSION (my personal fav in the horror genre) the film's shoestring production manages to bring it to life and manages to be an element of its brilliance rather than detracting from it and being looked as just amaterish. Recently, I put this film as one of the top 10 cult films of all time, the first being BEYOND THE VALLEY OF THE DOLLS, if you are interested. Check out this genuninely creepy film and you shouldn't be disappointed.

Title: PETE'S DRAGON Rating: ***1/2 (out of 5)

This is one of the favorite from my innoncent stage of being a child, along with some films like CLOAK & DAGGER, FLIGHT OF THE NAVIGATOR and, of course, THE GOONIES. Although MARY POPPINS is my all-time fav Disney movie, this film still has my merit. When I bought the film on DVD a couple of years ago (and it had been 6 or 7 years since I last saw it), I begin to see why it's been ranked as a disappointment and now totally ignored in the Disney canon. I'll begin with the performances. Singer Helen Reddy seems ideal in the title role, and her singing is absolutely wonderful...but in terms of her acting she is just OK. If anything, she certainly much better than most singers turned actresses (B. Spears is a perfect example). As Dr. Terminous, Jim Dale is a lot of fun---and seems to having fun---in his role, despite the criticism by many critics of his and his co-stars "tiresome mugging." However, he and Red Buttons are perfect on the level of as acting as turn-of-the century con artists (years later, Dale played The Duke in a version of Huck Finn for TV!). Then there is the always wonderful Mickey Rooney who, admittedly, mugs wayyyy too much, though at least he doesn't get annoying. Then there is Shelley Winters who, and I don't care what anyone says, is a genunine trip as Mrs. Gogan. Sure, she maybe doing little more than scenery-chewing, though she does do it well. Finally, last but not least is Sean Marshall as Pete. As for his character, he supposed to be the center of attention next to his pet dragon Elliott. My theory has always been is that it is too difficult to judge child actors, simply because they are young and experianced. If anything, he certainly looks the role, though it is true he cannot sing at all. Next, is the score and songs, which were both nominated for Oscars. I agree completely with an earlier reviewer, who said that they were good songs that were poorly staged. Most of the songs I actually love, and would sing to anyday. The music that opens up the film against a painted background of the setting is just wonderful. The first song, "The Happiest Home in these Hills" is great in introducing the Gogan family, and how much b.s. they are full of--lol, well, anyway, I love it...and the two dim-witted sons still make me laugh when they sing their dialogue. The song between Elliott and Pete is sweet on the surface, but it is the one I least like. I think the best song overall is Reddy's "Candle on the Water," which perfectly emphasizes how good of a singer she is. Then there are the three delightful numbers "Every Little Piece," "Brazzle Dazzle Day," and "Bill of Sale" (the funniest in my book). Also, one aspect of the film nobody has hinted on is the period detail, which I admit is minor, but for this film is impossible to ignore. The film is set in turn-of-the-century Maine, and everything down to the set to the costumes is absolutely first rate, and give the film a realistic atmosphere. The scene is the tavern, in particular, looks astonoshingly real. As for the animation, it wasn't anything new for the time (in comparison, this animation looks flawed next to MARY POPPINS and BEDKNOBS & BROOMSTICKS). However, for the time at least, its still fine...in fact, its done by Don Bluth and Gary Goldman, who later left Disney and did such wonderful films like SECRET OF NIMTH, LAND BEFORE TIME, and AN AMERICAN TAIL. Overall, I have to say that PETE'S DRAGON will always hold a special place in my heart along with all the earlier films I've mentioned (except for CROSSROADS, of course....my award for the worst film of all time, which I will always protest), despite its flaws. As for all the critics who panned then and now, all I'm saying is that if they watched this film as a child, I'm absolutely sure their opinions would be different.

Title: STAR WARS--EPISODE II: ATTACK OF THE CLONES Rating: ****1/2 (out of 5)

I have not been a huge STAR WARS fan, but I've love all of them: STAR WARS (*****), EMPIRE STRIKES BACK (*****), RETURN OF THE JEDI (****1/2) an d PHANTOM MENACE (***1/2). Now we have Episode II, which everyone (whether they liked or not), said it is definately better than Episode I. There has been a lot of debate to exactly why Episode I "bombed", but I personally believe it's do the fact that it forced the audience to suck so much of the new story and characters at one time that they came out disappointed and shaking their heads in disbelief (Myself, I'm still trying to get the whole story surrounding the Trade Federetion and what not.) I did agree with a lot of people that the spirit of the first trilogy was more absent than present; however there were still a lot of things I praised Episode I for. First, were the performances: Liam Neeson was towering as always and Ewan McGregor was exceptional as Obi-Won Kenobi (he would give an even stronger performance in Episode II...he is growing into the role quite nicely. I didn't think Jar Jar Binks was annoying, though he was way overdone, and the kid that played Anakin was, I have to admit, awful...Lucas could have found someone better. When I finished watching Episode II, I was totally transfixed because nearly every performance was better than expected....my vote for the best one goes to Ewan McGregor like I said before. There have been a lot of criticism about Hayden Christenson and Natalie Portman with their roles and I have to say....they are definately no Mark Hammill and Carrie Fisher, though I think they were good enough, if anything they definately had thier great moments. The best scene I think is when they confront each other on Tatooine where he says he wants to become more powerful. Christopher Lee was perfect as Count Dakoo, giving great strength and conviction to an evil role much like his former fellow Dracula actor Peter Cushing did, who was terrific as Grand Moff Tarkin in Episode IV. Plus, C-3PO, R2-D2, Yoda, as well as the other famaliar characters had much more screen time and thus kept you riveted as much as the first trilogy. Then there is the special effects which are genuinely eye-popping, though I've been nervous ever since Episode I with the issue of the effects: how are the filmmakers going to end this trilogy making the effects of the first trilogy believable? I think the CGI is overused to an extent considering the fact that the effects in STAR WARS, though not really aged, look very pale to these effects. However, other plusses include the magnificent cinematography: the scenes on Naboo are positively breathtaking (or maybe that's why I think Australia is paradise above most other countries), as well as the wonderful costumes (particularly the ones given to Portman). For those of you who were disappointed by the PHANTOM MENACE, this is all I'm saying: you WILL NOT be disappointed by this film.

Title: SUPERGIRL Rating (Theatrical Version): *1/2 (out of 5) Rating (International Version): ***1/2 (out of 5) Rating (Extended Director's Cut): **** (out of 5)

There have been many films that, when originally released, have been spit on and throughly trashed by the critics and audience; some of these films have developed into cult classics. However, I have never seen a film that has had the first characteristic and then eventually go beyond all expectations, raising a few eyebrows and almost completely overcome all the negativity that had been thrown at it in the past. SUPERGIRL is the first film that I have given ever that respect to and it's a real shame that it wasn't released the way it should have been. Personally, I'm a huge fan of the first two SUPERMAN films, and yet I really don't like comics in general. However, the original SUPERMAN film released in 1978, was respected by those who don't even care for superhero and comic book movies and it, to an extent, had started a phenomenon in terms of bringing more superheroes and comic book characters to the screen. When SUPERMAN III was released in 1983, however, it had practically ruined the concept and the audience had retreated back into their normal lives when Christopher Reeve, wisely, retired from the role. One year later, SUPERGIRL was released by the same producers (Alexander and Ilya Salkind) and trashed almost twice as much as SUPERMAN III was. Needless to say, when I saw it on television in the early 90's, I trashed it to and thought it was worse than SUPERMAN III, as well as PART IV, and looked at it nothing more than ridiculous and amateurish. In 2000, however, my opinion of SUPERGIRL was completely changed. Being an avid DVD collector (and a particular fan of audio commentaries), I decided to give SUPERGIRL a second chance for curiosity's sake and, as a result, this movie actually made me realize not to never judge a film again for just for what it shows and presents. The DVD version (by Anchor Bay) has two versions of the film...and neither one is the original 105 min. version! They contain the international version (which runs 124 min.) and a never-before-seen Director's Cut that ran a whopping 138 min! The latter version contained scenes that have not only never been released before, but have only recently surfaced in a London vault with the warning "Do Not Use." For the very first time, director Jeannot Szwarc has released his complete vision of the film, complete with a genuinely surprising audio commentary which touches base on his intentions before and during the making of the film from the very beginning. The facts (you can call them SPOILERS if you want) are simply these:

1. Christopher Reeve was going to be in it and be a mentor of sorts to Supergirl in one scene where she arrives on Earth, as well as be in another scene when Supergirl eventually saves him upon losing all his powers. Due to the failure of the third SUPERMAN movie, however, Reeve completely bowed out of the role due to his blaming of the Salkinds' for how they screwed up the entire franchise by making the third film campy and put more empahsis on comedy, which simply didn't work. Ironically, that's exactly how many critics and audiences in 1984 thought that SUPERGIRL was awful.

2. Director Jeannot Szwarc reveals that, from the beginning, that he wanted SUPERGIRL to stand on its own and be nothing more (or less) that what it was; in other words, he made it so it would pretend to be nothing else than itself. He had to contend with many revisions of the script by David Odell, for not only production reasons, but for studio reasons: Warner Bros declined to release it (again due to the failure of S. III) and it was then picked up by then-unknown Tri-Star pictures, who had chopped up the film to where, when it was released in the U.S., had a lot of incoherency and confusing development (in both plot and characters), and thus all but completely trashed Szwarc's vision and intentions.

3. The result made SUPERGIRL virtually ignored by the U.S. audience, failing miserably at the box office and with every major critic promoting it as garbage; my favorite critic, Leonard Maltin called it "a superdrag: dull, long, and heavy-handed." All the well-repected actors in it were condemned as being "wasted" and "laughable"; this is especially true of Faye Dunaway, as the villianess bent on obtaining world dominition. As for its status today, hardly anyone remembers it, and a few people I've talked to maintain it doesn't even exist! That all changed with the 2000 DVD release by Anchor Bay, which I had viewed only recently.

I truly believe that when people watch either the International or Director's Cut, that they will agree with me that it would have been much better---and maybe even a success---if released that way in 1984. Presented in a digitally mastered version by THX, the film matures on almost every level, beginning with Jerry Goldsmith's score being nothing short of sensationsal, giving the film what John Williams gave to the original SUPERMAN, but what's different is that Goldsmith's actually complements the heroine's qualities by being lyrical and high-spirited. Then there is Alan Hume's gorgeous cinematography, which reaches its zenith in a wonderful sequence where Supergirl does an "aerial ballet" when she discovers her powers; it supports the idea that her character is innocent and in utter awe with her discovery (may I also state that this sequence was cut entirely when first released). Finally, because of the director's commentary, my original opinions of the performances have been erased; he states that his cast chose to be in the film primarily because it was a change-of-pace for them and all they wanted was, as the director wanted as well, just to "have fun." That, combined with the additional footage bringing the full character development back into focus, the film goes beyond all expectations. The key to enjoying this film, bear in mind, is to not take it too seriously (which many critics tend to do when reviewing a movie). Despite all the praise I've given to this new version, the film still does have flaws, particularly in the writing department, though you do come to realize that is not necessarily the fault of the screenwriter when considering the sequence of events that lead to the film being made. I encourage anyone to take a chance to check this film out because it really is very enjoyable and a lot of fun; beware of the old video release and TV versions, however! E-mail me if you want to express your agreements (or disagreements) with me.

Title: CAREER OPPORTUNITIES Rating: **1/2 (out of 4)

CAREER OPPORTUNITIES is the film that I say that John Hughes ran out of steam and decided to use his HOME ALONE touches in much of his later movies. When I first saw this film at time of release, I absolutely loved it. Of course now, being older and wiser, I like it less but still think it's very watchable. SPOILERS ahead... Frank Whaley, who had solid supporting roles in BORN THE FOURTH OF JULY and FIELD OF DREAMS (two of the best films of 1989) gets his first (and, to date, only) starring role as a small-town loser who his branded a liar by everyone around him and can't seem to hold down a job (he even offers to work for the gas station for free!). He's 22 and still living at home with his family, which he admittedly loves, for just "the meals, cable, and the five-star accomodations." His father, extremely annoyed by his son's laziness, gets him a job as the night cleanup boy at the local Target store. The film primarily focuses on his first night there, upon which he discovers that a gorgeous bombshell (played by Jennifer Connelly, one of my fav actresses) fell asleep in the dressing room while in the process of shoplifting. Soon, they are visited by two inept burglars (played by real-life brothers Dermot and Kieran Mulroney). One thing that should be definately be said of this film, this is not your run-of-the-mill teen comedy. Actually, I think there are many funny lines and situations. Two of my favorites are a scene with Whaley and the late, great John Candy (who intially thinks he's hiring Whaley as an assistant manager) and another with Whaley and John Forsythe, as the store's custodian (who asks him if he's a slacker and Whaley says, "uh, no, I'm a Presbyterian"). The robbers are funny, too, but they are really nothing more than characters to move the plot forward to its utterly predictable conclusion. Overall, I think this film succeeds as simply a watchable but forgettable comedy. If anything, the cast is fun to watch and Connelly is an added bonus for those guys who want to see her wear a tight white shirt that reveals her huge breasts, though I liked her also for the fact that she is is charming (Britney Spears, by comparison, isn't charming and at least Connelly's breasts are real).

Favorite Quote: DM: What about the tattoo? JC: I don't have one! KM (to DM): Yeah, you owe me a buck!

Title: AN OFFICER AND A GENTLEMAN Rating: **** (out of 4) I want to say first off that this first off that I've heard many people say that this nothing more than a simple "chick flick." I really hate that term, because I know every guy has seen a so-called "chick flick" and went away at least liking it. Ok, maybe AN OFFICER AND A GENTLEMAN is one of those type of films, but one thing is certain....it kicks TOP GUN's A**!!! This is film is about the rigorous training to become a pilot, while GUN shows a bunch of guys involved in "dogfights that play like video games (I heartily agree with Leonard Maltin). ***SPOILERS AHEAD*** Richard Gere, in one of his best roles (second only to PRIMAL FEAR), plays Zachary Mayo, a loner who goes to Navy Candidate School to become a pilot because simply, that's all he wants to do. He finds a real challenge in the drill instructor Foley, played unforgettably by Louis Gossett, Jr. (who won an Oscar). He also finds love for the first time in his life, in the form of a poor factory worker (Debra Winger). His best friend Worley (David Keith) finds love too...but it doesn't turn out the way he wanted. Much of the film alternates between in his growing relationship with Winger and the rigourous training he endures, which become more important to him than ever when Foley order him to quit after doing so illegal....he, however, refuses to give up for anything in this world (the famous emotional climax is when he confesses "I've got nowhere else to go."). Personally, I see this film as most certainly not a chick flick, but a film that has something for both sequences in equal doses; more females will appreciate the romance, while more males will root for Mayo as he overcomes many obstacles, most notably Foley. I must confess, however, that my favorite sequence in the whole film is the last one, showing Gere carry Winger out of her factory. There is a much more emotional scene, however, that I will definately not give away; I've never met anyone who wasn't moved by it (when you see it, you will find out!). In addition to the cast, the film also features great direction by Taylor Hackford and a well-written (if having the standard number of minute flaws) screenplay by Douglas Day Stewart. The lovely score is done by Jack Nitzsche, and it also features the classic love song "Up Where We Belong" by Joe Cocker & Jennifer Warnes (which, I must say, is way better than Berlin's song from TOP GUN, though both won Oscars). Still, the performances are what makes this film and it succeeds, making it one of the most romantic films of all time.

Fav. Quote: "Only two things come out of Oklahoma: Steers and Queers."

Title: EMPIRE RECORDS Rating: 0 stars (out of 5)

If you don't get the summary line, it means that Britney Spears' CROSSROADS will probably take the title of worst movie ever made from this. In writing a review of EMPIRE RECORDS, I will admit that I'm making an opinion, though it is agreed by virtually all of my friends, a lot of people I'm not friends with and every single critic to see this piece of crap. I will explain as well as listing some *spoliers*. RECORDS is set in a----oh, hell, you should know anyway---and features a group of teenagers who work there and attempt to save it from being bought by another company and turned into something else. That is all of the plot to speak of, and it's been used so many times before that it can't be labeled as being formulaic anymore. The reason why this film is liked by so many people aged 14-22 is mostly because they say it's funny. Here's my question: what was funny? The film opens up with the person working closing down, taking (no, sorry, stealing) a lot of money out of the cash register, and losing it all in Vegas. Yeah, really funny....and for those of you who found it funny...would you do that? Riiiight!!! Many of these characters are so stupid they make the Three Stooges look like Nobel prize winners. What upset me more is that they are so stereotypical. Anybody who says that these are what real teenagers are like must be mad. I mean, this girl goes in the bathroom and shaves all her hair off....uh, why? Because she's rebelling? (now there's a spoiler for you)....oh, yeah, that would be the excuse of anyone who loves this movie. Hell, if you want to rebel why don't you go to Las Vegas and become a street-walking whore! Another reason why some people love this film...because the actors are hot? THIS IS A MOVIE PEOPLE!!! These people are supposed to be ACTING, not modelling. If you really think Ethan Embry is "hot," buy a damn pin-up calendar! God, no wonder many brainless girls like this movie! Every performance in this movie is so unbelievable, unrealistic and not even poor enough to be funny. That includes the script, which contains some of the worst dialogue ever contributed to a movie (though not as bad as some of the lines in CAN'T HARDLY WAIT). In my closing paragraph, I want to say I met someone once who called this movie THE BREAKFAST CLUB of the 90s. Oh, yes, and did I mention that this person is in a sorority, a cheerleader, and listens to New Kids on the Block? I remember the days when I worked at a video store and destroyed every copy of this film and upsetting so many bimbos who wanted to rent it...rent LUCAS instead, that is the film about REAL teenagers.

Title: YOU'VE GOT MAIL

Rating: ***1/2

Review: One of best romantic comedies in years, YOU'VE GOT MAIL is funny, charming, and endearing which all completely make up for the fact that it isn't original. A remake of the 1940 film THE SHOP AROUND THE CORNER (starring James Stewart and Margaret Sullivan), this not only matches in the original in terms of greatness, but is also effectively updated to the modem age, where two ordinary New Yorkers meet in an internet chatroom and begin an "online friendship," little realizing they eventually meet...and become enemies! Tom Hanks plays Joe Fox, owner of FOX & SONS BOOKS, a mega-bookstore that threatens to put a wonderful, 42-year-old children's book store (named THE SHOP AROUND THE CORNER) out of business. Meg Ryan plays the owner of the little children's bookstore and she soon develops a grudge against Hanks who clearly is trying to establish the fact that the situation is completely business in nature, not personal. The solid supporting cast includes Parker Posey as Hanks' girlfriend (who has some serious problems), a charming Greg Kinnear as Ryan's beau, Dabney Coleman has Hanks' father, and Dave Chappelle (who I thought was the only likable---and tolerable---character in the ill- conceived HALF-BAKED) in a funny role as Hank's assistant. This is the third film to join Hanks and Ryan, after JOE VERSUS THE VOLCANO and SLEEPLESS IN SEATTLE, and the second one to reunite the two stars with co-writer/director Nora Ephron, who wrote WHEN HARRY MET SALLY..., the film that made Ryan a star. The two stars have so much chemistry together in this film, and that's only half the reason why they give outstanding performances. Those who enjoy light and delightful romantic comedies (SLEEPLESS IN SEATTLE in particular) that have all the basic ingredients such as a wonderful soundtrack, tender direction, and irresistable stars will adore this!

Title: REFORM SCHOOL GIRLS

Rating: ** (out of 4)

Review: The one small film genre I've never dived into yet are Women Prison Movies. They made dozens of them in the '60s and '70s, some by Roger Corman (of all people). Director Tom DeSimone is a veteren of several low-budget B movies, and has made several women prison movies, including PRISON GIRLS and CHAINED HEAT. In 1986, he decided to give the genre a tounge-in-cheek/spoofy attitude and up until this day, REFORM SCHOOL GIRLS has become a genuine cult favorite. This film is highly exaggerrated and ridiculous, though campy enough to sustain interest---for some people. Linda Carol (who made her film debut a year earlier in the grade-Z high school comedy SCHOOL SPIRIT) stars as Jenny, a young teenage girl who finds herself going to reform school, and having to deal with a overweight monster of a warden (Pat Ast), as well as lesbian punkette and her gang, whose wardrobes seem to be limited to G-strings and a bra (Wendy O. Williams, lead singer of the band, The Plasmatics). Sherri Stoner plays her best friend Lisa, who is been affected more by Ast and Williams, and former Playboy playmate Sybil Danning plays the Head Warden. As an exaggerated guilty pleasure, the film is OK, with cheesy dialogue and mediocre acting (even by Williams!); overall, though, REFORM SCHOOL GIRLS is just plain forgettable. Also, it tries way too hard in every way, especially in how it tries to be shocking and funny. Those who are interested in the cast members will no doubt want to take a look, though they are mostly likely to be disappointed.

Rating: ***1/2 (out of 4)

Review: When I first heard the plot outline for CAST AWAY, I was praying to God that Hollywood wasn't going to go back to Gilligan's Island territory and use a much-respected actor (Tom Hanks) as a way to make viewers not realize their the plot had absolutely no originality (which about 60% of all Hollywood films are currently...and increasing every year!). However, thanks to a perceptive screenplay by William Broyles, Jr., this film practically made me disappointed with myself for making those assumptions. Even worse, it wasn't until I saw Hanks on the THE TONIGHT SHOW a few months later and explaining that his inspiration for CAST AWAY came when he viewed a documentary on the life and disappearance of Amelia Earhart, as well as the startling theory that she may have lived another 50 years on a deserted island after being discovered missing. On that note, there will most likely not be another time I will misjudge Hollywood for what I hear before I actually buy my ticket and popcorn and watch the movie and not putting my opinions down on paper before I actually watch the final frame. Director Robert Zemeckis (who helmed the much-loved favorites BACK TO THE FUTURE, CONTACT and WHAT LIES BENEATH) teams with Hanks for the very first time to tell the story of a FEDEX employee who finds himself washed ashore on a Pacific island after a frightening plane crash. It's now Man vs. Nature as Hanks collects small amounts of water from coconuts and rain, builds a fire to cook crab, make attempts let people know he is there and be rescued, and even creating a companion to talk to---a Wilson volleyball! I will not divulge what happens to Hanks eventually, for the purpose that this film develops an emotional intensity during the final half four.

Just as it sounds this is Tom Hanks' show all the way; the two-time Academy Award winner has been giving outstanding trademark performances all throughout his career, from playing a 12-year-old trapped inside the body of a 30-year-old (BIG), to a homosexual battling AIDS (PHILADELPHIA), and finally to a sweet simpleton who only is only barely aware of his surroundings and the people in this life (FORREST GUMP). In CAST AWAY, Hanks makes his character someone to actually care about, which is one of the most important elements in any good performance; he makes his lost FEDEX worker convincingly go through different emotional phases which results in a strong development in the character. Academy-Award winner Helen Hunt (AS GOOD AS IT GETS) plays the woman he loves with earnestness and compassion. Still, the one "character" that practically steals the film is Wilson, the volleyball who Hanks creates as a friend in order escape insanity, and as a lesser reason to have something---if not someone---to talk to; Wilson's final sequence is truly moving and unforgettable. In more ways than one, CAST AWAY surprised me and I loved it from beginning to end; if anything, I truly believe that with any other actor besides Hanks the character would be dull and the viewer wouldn't get involved. The film also boasts a fine score by Alan Silvestri (a regular on many Zemeckis films), as well as gorgeous photography and, finally, William Broyles, Jr's wonderful script, which managed to dodge cliches and make the film overall seem new and fresh. For that reason, I know that next time I go see a film a famliar story, that I will not print a word until the theater's lights illuminate once again.

Rating: ***1/2

Review: I know I've seen this more than 100 times, and chances are I'll see it a 1000 more times until I die. One of the most underrated films of the 1980s, this film not only marked the second directorial effort by Rob Reiner (THE PRINCESS BRIDE, WHEN HARRY MET SALLY...), but also the starring debut of John Cusack, one of my all-time favorite actors (even if he wasn't, I'd still feel the same way about this film). Even after 15 years, this film remains fresh, funny and wonderfully romantic, with a tenderness and innocence that's missing in so many teen films. It still offends me how so many teen films put it out today (with CAN'T HARDLY WAIT leading the pack) could become hits with their target audiences and films like this are left on the video shelf being forgotten. Their excuse may be simply that "it's old," but considering how cliched teen films are today, I can't believe they are smart enough to realize that. It's a shame that THE SURE THING hasn't recieved the DVD treatment, so that it could be re-discovered by today's audiences. THE SURE THING stars Cusack as Walter "Gib" Gibson a guy who loves junk food, beer, and life in general but feels lost for the first time in his life in terms of love when he completes high school. While having a beer with his best friend Lance (Anthony Edwards), he recalls all the women he's been with and how's he's changed. We now find out that they are about to depart to seperate colleges: Lance is going to California, and Gib is going to an Ivy League school up in the Northeast. Gib discovers that college is not all it's cracked up to be, and soon starts to flunk English. This is when we meet Alison Bradbury (Daphne Zuniga) a straight-A, education committed young woman who is too uptight, to say the least.

Gib tries, but fails, to win Allison and finds himself back to Square One when he gets a call from Lance. Since Christmas is coming soon, Lance invites Gib to travel cross country to spend the holidays with him. Gib declines, until Lance mentions that there is a "very special person...who loves sex" who would very much like to meet him. After seeing a picture of this "sure thing" that Lance sends him, he immediately makes plans to travel to California. He soon realizes that he's not travelling alone, but with Alison, who's also journeying to CA to see her boyfriend (calling him uptight would be much too kind). The majority of the films shows them on the road trying to get to California, though they soon learn not only tolerate but also respect each other, and soon their goals become dimmer, but not forgotten. There are so many wonderful moments on this little trip! Instead of using cliches, director Reiner likes to poke fun at them like in a near-rape scene where Gib becomes a real actor, or when Alison is learning to shotgun beer (one of Gib's favorite hobbies) and finally discovering the last thing you'd expect to be sticking out a car window while driving by. Finally, when they both arrive in California, Alison learns of Gib's reason for coming and the climactic scene is at a dorm party where unions are forged, words are passed and feelings are finally looked at by the two main characters. The film's final sequence is quite unusual and different, which is all the more reason for you to forget the film's only negative element. That element that THE SURE THING seems to get attacked by is predictablity, though most people shouldn't care, considering how charming and funny the film is. Sure, you know that Gib and Alison are going to end up together but the trip to that point is something to a grab a seat for. Writers Steven Bloom and Jonathan Roberts make every character real and believable and manage to give nearly every one of them an unforgettable line. Saying just one of those lines would spoil a lot for the person who hasn't watched this movie yet. All I'm saying is, if there is a film that shouldn't be missed it is this one, because like a lot of critics said "It's a genuinely special love story."

Title: THE PERFECT STORM

Rating: ** (out of 4)

Review: Wolfgang Peterson is one of the most influential and exciting filmmaker's today. I was blasted out of my seat with AIR FORCE ONE, and THE NEVERENDING STORY is still one my (and many others) favorite films from my youth. That's why I was looking forward to watching THE PERFECT STORM, even though I really don't like George Clooney as an actor. I was really surprised, however, with Clooney this time around; his sincere perfomance as a likable fishing captain really helped this film, along with the actors, including Mark Wahlberg, John C. Reilly (who I personally loved in MAGNOLIA), Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio (I was wondering what happened to her), Diane Lane and Karen Allen. However, THE PERFECT STORM had a problem. A big problem. Let me put it this way, if the film HADN'T been based on a true story it would have been much more exciting and entertaining, which this film is really until halfway through, when you start to think (most people didn't, and that's why they loved it).

The film draws it's story from a 1997 novel by Sebastion Junger, which in turn is based on an actual 1991 storm that was formed off the coast of Gloucester, Massachusetts and sunk a fishing boat called the Andrea Gail. According to the film (admittedly I have not read the book, which I understand is quite good) the group of fisherman leave Gloucester to go far out to catch a motherload of fish because of tensions between the captain (Clooney) and his boss (Michael Ironside) over financial complications (at least I think that's how I remember it). The film then showcases what goes on the boat, including disputes and accidents, and eventually they are forced to make the decision to go through the storm and not let the fish go bad, or wait until storm subsides and then go through safely. They choose to go through, and this is the one of the several plot turns that just seem to slap me across the face. Why?

Like another reviewer pointed out earlier in the reviews, how the hell does the screenwriter know what happened to the boat and it's crew? He doesn't...plain and simple. Even if this is a so-called dramatization of an actual event, it forces us to believe that this what happened just because of its saying that is based on a true story. The moment that really did it for me was when Mark Wahlberg came up to the surface after the boat had sunk and was talking to his fiancee in this mind. Come on, people....can you be more unrealistic and unbelievable than that? That's why I said before that if that event had never happened, this would have been a much better movie, because like a lot of people I was drawn into it during the first part but then illogic eventually started washing across the screen like those giant waves. Oh, and about those waves. I'm sorry, but I wasn't impressed, aside from the wave that toppled the boat over, it just seemed like I was watching a third-rate surfer video. Hell, if you want to see some waves watch the end of the Special Edition version of THE ABYSS...those waves alone wash over every single one in STORM.

One final thing before I wrap this up...at the end, the film (predictably) dedicates itself to the number of people that lost their lives off the coast of Gloucester. Personally, I thought the book would have been an enough of a dedication because this movie I don't think does justice to them. I wouldn't be surprised if some of them are doing sommersalts in their graves over the depiction of what was going on on their boat in the movie. Like the unexplained disappearance of Amelia Earheart, maybe the filmmakers should have been honest in how much they really knew what happened to the Andrea Gail, which is really not that much.

Title: BOYS DON'T CRY

Rating: **** (out of 4)

Review: I wasn't able to see this film, unfortunately, until after the Oscars when I was able to go back to the U. S. in April of this year. When I had heard that Hilary Swank won the Best Actress Oscar for this film, I had to put it on my must-see list. As it turned out, the film came out on video just three days before I had to go back to my station in Japan. All I really knew about the film was that it was based on a true story about a woman who lived his life and as a man and was brutally raped and murdered in 1993. That's all I knew, and after watching this film I couldn't believe my eyes. Out of all the true stories that Hollywood has put on film, this stands out, mostly because of its disturbingly honest presentation and unforgettable performances that even the real-life characters that there based on even said how real they were. Like the same year's OCTOBER SKY (which got #2 on my Ten Best List) the story is dramatized, filmmaking-wise, but it dare doesn't turn away from being an unforgettable potrayal of a truly unique and unfairly misjudged human being. The story originates in Lincoln, Nebraska, 1993 which is where Brandon Teena came from. We discover early on that Brandon is a female that develops a "sexual identity crisis" and becomes a male, and eventually becomes one of the most desired guys in Nebraska. We also learn that Brandon, under the name of Teena, has been criminally charged several times, most notably for grand theft auto. Moving to Falls City, Brandon strikes up a friendship with circle of aimless residents, including Candice, a single mother who works as a bartender, John Lotter and Tom Nissen, a couple of guys who've served time for various reasons, and finally Lana Tisdel, a girl who Brandon falls in love with. The bulk of the film showcases Brandon and Lana's growing relationship, and first-time co-writer/director Kimberly Pierce handles this so beautifully despite the addition of a graphic sex scene, which the real Lana Tisdel reports never happened. Eventually, Brandon's new friends soon discover he is not who he says he his, and eventually becomes the victim of a hate crime. Pierce makes the story so compelling from the beginning that the film doesn't become a simple cross-dressing tale but of a powerful examination of a human being who was just different and also of the friends that he made who just wouldn't accept him for who he really was (all of them except for Lana, who surprisingly does). The haunting theme "The Bluest Eyes in Texas," sung by Nina Persson and Nathan Larson, also adds perfect punctuation. Still, what really makes this sleeper praiseworthy are the performances, starting with Hilary Swank's moving, perfectly tuned potrayal of Brandon, who recieved the well-deserved Best Actress, as well as a long list of other honors. Chloe Sevigny, who I've fallen in love with in every film I've seen her in (from her breakout role as an AIDS victim in the controversial 1995 film KIDS, to her shy and smart lead character in last year's underrated THE LAST DAYS OF DISCO) shines as Lana, and has won a score of acting honors as well. Peter Sarsgaard and Brendan Sexton III are fine as the antagonists John and Tom, and finally Jeanette Arnette is great in a smallish role as Lana's mother who, of course, turns the other way at her daughter's new boyfriend.

Although some viewers may be turned off at the high volume of profanity and rape sequences, this film should be given a chance if not only for the fact of it being a true story, but also for it's respect to a unique and unfairly misjudged human being who didn't live his life to the fullest.

Title: Nutty Professor II, The: The Klumps

Rating: **1/2 (out of 4)

Review: I've never been a die-hard Eddie Murphy fan, but that's of course not to say that he isn't funny or endearing, either. TRADING PLACES has always been my favorite Murphy movie, with the original BEVERLY HILLS COP a close second. He's a funny guy, and he has come further than he ever has had before with NUTTY II. The original 1996 film was both funny and enjoyable, if having the distinction of having occasional unnecessary bathroom humor. NUTTY II, however, is taken to extremes with the bathroom humor, everywhere from Grandma Klump giving Buddy Love oral sex in a hot tub to a hamster growing to epic proportions giving anal sex to Klump's boss, this film revels in bad taste way too much. Is the film funny? Sure it is, and it would have been a lot funnier if not for all the sickenening humor that we've seen dozens of times before (I don't blame Murphy particularly for this, considering the script was co-written by the guys who wrote AMERICAN PIE, and directed by Peter Segal, who has had his fair share of films with the same type of humor). They don't make the sick humor at least clever, which is the problem. THERE'S SOMETHING ABOUT MARY and BASEKETBALL made their bathroom humor clever, but NUTTY II doesn't.

Murphy fans are sure to love this, though, because I was telling the truth before about him coming further than he ever has before. Playing no less than 8 roles (this might be some kind of record), his main character is Sherman Klump, a charmingly overweight professor who, in the original wanted to get rid of all the weight and became a stud in Buddy Love to make a beautiful co-ed (Jada Pinkett, whose missing prescence in the sequel is annoyingly unexplained) and eventually learns in the end that you should be yourself and that personality is way more important about looks. In the sequel, he can't shake off the DNA that Buddy has left inside of him, so he decides to attempt to get rid of it, but Buddy eventually (and predictably) regenerates himself with a new thing on his mind. Sherman, apparantly, has discovered the fountain of youth, and now Buddy is going to stop him and take the invention to his own credit. This film, apart from the original, focuses more on Sherman's family, right down to their gluttonous eating habits to their sexual fantasies. That's basically the whole plot in a nutshell. As I've said before, Murphy is terrific, and he's well worth watching in his eight roles, but this film will turn off a lot of viewers because all the sick humor, which I must say is more silly than funny, yet you find yourself for some reason still laughing to it (or rather, at it). Janet Jackson, as Eddie's love interest here, is OK, but she seems to be more important to the audience (any audience, not just the African-American audience) as a male fantasy figure than an actress. Overall, I'm looking at this film as another one to add to Murphy's list of commercial successes that is funny enough to make him a respectable comedian, but for once I want him to go more towards not grossing us out and finding a concept to appeal to anyone and everyone.

A lot of people love E.T., my self included. I cannot recall whether I saw it in the theaters, but Henry Thomas became a household name after that movie came out. The truth is when I think of Henry Thomas, I don't immediately think of E.T., but of CLOAK & DAGGER, which was one of my favorite films as a kid and will forever be one of my favorites. And yet there is something truly bizarre that always comes to me while watching it. I've never been a fan of video games. In fact, I think most of them are stupid, a waste of time and money. CLOAK & DAGGER was a video game I believe (well, it is in the movie). Henry Thomas stars as Davy Osbourne, an imaginitive 11-year-old who loves his favorite superhero Jack Flack, who he likes to view as his make-believe hero. Set in San Antonio during the summer, the film has Thomas going to run an errand for a friend, and owner of a computer store, and gets involved in something he never dreamed of: a real-life game involving spies and a video game. No one will believe him after he reports of a man being shot and murdered in front of his own eyes, including his own father an Air Force sergeant, played just wonderfully by Dabney Coleman, who I've enjoyed in everything from 9 to 5 to Tootsie. The movie soon becomes a roller coaster ride as Thomas is attempting to get away from the spies before they kill him. The plot is riveting and believable, which is the real reason why this pulled me in at such a young age. I can't imagine an actor better than Thomas in this lead role. Coleman is equally memorable as his father, who also plays Jack Flack. Michael Murphy, a great character actor, is chilling as the head spy. I recommend this film for anyone and everyone. ***1/2 out of 4.